Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 245 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. Ranjit Kaur

2013-02-21

L.N.MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Ranjit Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) assailing judgment dated 25.08.2012 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. 2. Respondent Ranjit Kaur who is wife of petitioner, filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C against petitioner Ranjit Singh, claiming maintenance allowance. Learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure P-3) granted her maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month w.e.f. 31.05.2008, the date of filing of the application. The wife filed petition for execution of the said order claiming arrears of maintenance since 31.05.2008 onwards. In the execution proceedings, petitioner herein moved application alleging that he was also paying interim maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent, pursuant to order passed by District Court, Chandigarh under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) in divorce petition instituted by the petitioner against the respondent and therefore, the said amount paid under Section 24 of the Act be adjusted towards arrears of maintenance due under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 11.02.2012 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the aforesaid application of the petitioner husband. Revision petition against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment Annexure P-1, which is under challenge in this revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. In the instant petition, order Annexure P-2 of learned Judicial Magistrate, is not under challenge. Consequently, the petition is liable to fail on this ground alone. 6. The instant petition, in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is nothing but a second revision petition by the petitioner, which is, however, barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. 7. Even on merits, the petitioner cannot claim adjustment of amount paid by him under Section 24 of the Act, in execution proceedings regarding arrears of maintenance payable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Such a prayer could be made when petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent herein was decided vide order Annexur P-3. Even on merits, the petitioner cannot claim adjustment of amount paid by him under Section 24 of the Act, in execution proceedings regarding arrears of maintenance payable under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Such a prayer could be made when petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent herein was decided vide order Annexur P-3. However, there is no order of adjustment of the amount paid under Section 24 of the Act towards maintenance directed to be paid under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Consequently, in execution proceedings, no such adjustment could be made because in execution proceedings, the Court cannot go beyond the order sought to be executed. 8. It may also be mentioned that perusal of order Annexure P-3 reveals that salary of the petitioner-husband was Rs.44,155/- per month at that time and the wife was granted maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month only. 9. Thus examined from any angle, there is no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed.